Honestly, the hot camera around my house these days is the Olympus OM-D with the Panasonic 25 1.4. When the X2 arrived I was wondering if it would have what it takes to bump that OM-D out of my hands 
In many ways it does, and in others NO. The IQ and images I get from
the X2 I have been liking a bit more than the images I am getting from
the OM-D. I just like that “X” look, and yes there is a look to these files that is NOT in seen anywhere else. But using the camera is slow going when directly compared to the OM-D.
In many ways it does, and in others NO. The IQ and images I get from
the X2 I have been liking a bit more than the images I am getting from
the OM-D. I just like that “X” look, and yes there is a look to these files that is NOT in seen anywhere else. But using the camera is slow going when directly compared to the OM-D.
I decided that since I had these cameras
here in the house, why not do this comparison? I took a shot with each
camera. The Leica X2, the Olympus OM-D and The Sony NEX-7. All were
using 35mm or equivalent focal lengths and the Olympus had a 50mm
equivalent so it’s NOT a scientific test at all. Just a few shots to
show how each camera rendered the scene. These are all from RAW. All
were shot at f/4 and base ISO of each camera was used.
Click each image to see larger version and full 100% crop
-
To me, the OM-D takes the #1 spot for
sharpness and detail though it is so so sharp, almost too sharp. The X2
colors are really nice and the NEX-7 looks good. One thing to note is
that the OM-D was the quickest in operation, the NEX-7 2nd and the X2
was the slowest to focus, shoot and write to the card..AND to shut down
as it takes about 2-3 seconds to do so. So while Leica has improved a
few things with the X2, they are sort of minor things that were improved
upon. It is not like going from an M8 to M9. More like gaining a little
bit of a speed boost, much better battery life,
sturdier build and of course the EVF capability. At the end of the day
the images coming from the X2 look like they could have come from the
X1, and I guess that is a good thing. Actually, I KNOW this is a good
thing.
Compared to the Fuji X100
I shot these on a tripod at f/2.8 and f/4.
No processing or sharpening was done to these at all and these are as
they came out of the RAW converter, which was Adobe Camera Raw. One
thing you can notice is how warm the X2 white balance is (auto was used
to see what each camera puts out at these settings) which his what lends
to the pleasing images that come out of it. In comparison, the Fuji
rendering is cooler/bluer. I am a fan of warm but remember, these
settings can be changed during RAW conversion if desired.
Click each image for larger size and full size crop. ALL from RAW, no PP, NO sharpening added.
-
Compared to others (in words)
X2 compared to the OM-D E-M5
– OK, I have raved about the OM-D and for good reason..it is a fabulous
little camera, and I am not the only one to say so. Just about everyone
who has shot with one has stated that THIS is the camera that has
finally matured Micro 4/3. The OM-D is FAST, has amazing in body IS,
great image quality, a high res swivel LCD, superb fast lenses to choose
from, weatherproof so no worries if in the rain, amazing quality video,
and a nice built in EVF. All for about $1100 or so. $900 less than the
X2. Add a kick ass amazing lens like the Panasonic 25 1.4 and that
brings you to $1600 or so, still $400 less than an X2. So why would
anyone buy an X2 that appears to use outdated technology (no IS, old low
res LCD, no built in EVF, slow write times, etc) when you can get the
hottest camera of 2012 for cheaper? Well, at the end of the day it’s
about the images right? If a camera is easy to use AND capable of
giving superb results then isn’t that what really matters? IMO the
E-M5 is indeed the better bang for the buck camera, no question. BUT the
X2 will give you a bit better and dare I say…more film like and richer
files/colors. It will be slower but you will get less digital looking
images from it. This comes down to asking yourself what you need. Do you
need speed and versatility (OM-D) or ultimate IQ and simplicity? (X2)
The X2 is also much slimmer and smaller.
X2 compared to the NEX-7
– The NEX-7 was the big camera of 2011 and 2012 because it was the 1st
to offer everything in one body full of technology. The only issue with
the Sony is that the damn thing operates more like a computer than a
camera. It is so filled with technological advances and controls you
really feel like you are out with a “device” instead of a camera. Other
than that, once set up and with a good lens it delivers great results.
It is a little faster to AF than the X2 and operates quicker as well.
But the lenses are lacking in the NEX system though the Zeiss 24 1.8 is
as close to the 24 Elmarit as you can get, it is just larger. Again,
personal preference here. Do you want ultimate control and
customization? Video capability (though the 7 overheats after a few
minutes of HD video)? Tilt high res LCD and nice OLED EVF? Then the 7
may tick your buttons.
X2 compared to the Fuji X100
– THIS is the ultimate comparison (and I just updated the review with
samples from each above). I did compare the X100 and X1 quite a while
ago HERE and
some of you preferred the X100 and some the X1. Well, the X2 is not
much different than the X1 in regards to IQ and it is a little faster,
just about on par with the X100 if not a but slower (the Fuji X100
firmware update sped up the AF quite a bit). BUT these two cameras do
have much different looks to the images. The Fuji has the Fuji colors
and “look” which is a little soft when wide open up to f/4 and after f/4
super sharpness and detail. But you will get those Fuji yellows and
greens and blues as well as a cooler white balance when using Auto. The
Leica has its own look which is nice and contrasty, great warm and rich
color and that Leica look you get from their lenses. Some may prefer the
Fuji look, others the Leica look. I do feel the X2 is the more
attractive camera. I also feel the X2 is much more basic and simple and
focuses on one thing…the photos. The X100 and X2 are neck and neck at
high ISO. Now that I have shot both side by side, as for focus, the X100
and X2 are also neck and neck. Maybe the Fuji is a split millisecond
faster but it’s close. What you choose comes down to preference. Do you
want a made in Germany Leica X2 with warm colors and rich files (but
slow in operation, poor LCD, no EVF and slower lens) or do you want the
X100 which is $800 cheaper (with EVF/OVF, faster lens, video and better
LCD)? Your choice! I choose BOTH Well, I actually did just that!
Well, I actually did just that!